6 ms·

I would imagine a facility like this would have much better monitoring for refrigerant pressure drops than a typical consumer-grade system, plus a staff onsite

I would imagine a facility like this would have much better monitoring for refrigerant pressure drops than a typical consumer-grade system, plus a staff onsite that would be able to close valves and rapidly find and repair leaks.

IgorPartola 5y ago
Not to be too glib, but that’s what we imagined about Chernobyl as well.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Despite your disclaimer, I do feel this is too glib. What is the takeaway? Yes, a bad thing happened one time at that facility (and others, at other times). That doesn't have much bearing on what I said. It is still reasonable to suspect that refrigerant leaks will not be a major problem at this facility.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    I am saying that in general I would prefer a system that’s safe by design, not by the fact that there are going to be people there who can make very human mistakes and create a problem. It is all relative: is it safer to run a facility like this or to transport a tanker-full of crude oil across waterways? But just saying that well there will be people there to open a valve when bad things happen is naive.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      When comparing the risk of refrigerant leaks in cooling systems in general vs heat exchange systems at a highly technical and actively monitored facility, it is relevant that the facility is actively monitored and probably has much better controls than typical refrigerant-using installations. It's not naïve to observe that most refrigerant leaks are likely from systems that are not monitored (i.e. almost all residential systems and probably most commercial ones).
- tw04 5y ago
  And we were right. Chernobyl was the result of repeated bad actions that people knew were bad actions at the time. Furthermore Chile has a democratic government, not a communist dictatorship, so it's extremely unlikely for something like that to occur there.
  - soperj 5y ago
    I don't agree with the poster, but Fukushima? 3-Mile island? I don't think the democracy has anything to do with it.
    - IgorPartola 5y ago
      Not having a totalitarian government is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to prevent covering up of accidents.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Singapore is basically a totalitarian state and I'd trust them with a nuclear reactor. Depends on the situation I suppose.
        asteroidbelt 5y ago
        No it is not. According to democracy index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index, Singapore is "flawed democracy" (not even a "hybrid regime"), same as Mexico, for example. The index might be not very objective, but it is not completely broken, so Singapore is definitely not a "totalitarian state".
        vkou 5y ago
        To split hairs, Singapore is a one-party police state, but it's not totalitarian. A totalitarian state directs all of its population's efforts in pursuit of state goals. The USSR during WWII (Or during the civil war, or during the years in between the civil war and WWII) would strongly qualify - and between Stalin's death, and Glasnost, would semi-strongly qualify. North Korea would strongly qualify. Singapore, modern Russia, or modern-day China would not, because most activity that takes place in them is undirected market economics. They have a few directed economic areas, deemed of import to the state, but for the majority of activity taking place in them, the state is not involved significantly closer than it is in western countries.
- pornel 5y ago
  This is like using Hindenburg as a caution against party balloons.
  - staunch 5y ago
    The Hindenburg disaster should definitely serve as a caution against using hydrogen party balloons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5JwHeKnZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5JwHeKnZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DUIcCq0Hes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DUIcCq0Hes
- vkou 5y ago
  I would like to remind everyone that nearly every single industrial process, used to manufacture common, everyday items necessary for civilization, at one point or another, handles materials, fluids, or gases at very high pressure. If 'gases under pressure' is a deal breaker for you, I hope you don't use gasoline, or buy any products that are shipped by gas-powered, or diesel-powered vehicles.
Freestyler_3 5y ago
No matter how fast they notice it, a leak will have a huge impact even if just for a second. Bigger system means bigger pipes or faster transport, either will result in more loss than what a whole consumer grade system can possibly contain. But like someone said, they most likely wont be using any consumer grade gasses. Big systems use gas that is more dangerous for humans nearby, but has no impact on the ozon.

IgorPartola 5y ago

Not to be too glib, but that’s what we imagined about Chernobyl as well.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Despite your disclaimer, I do feel this is too glib. What is the takeaway? Yes, a bad thing happened one time at that facility (and others, at other times). That doesn't have much bearing on what I said. It is still reasonable to suspect that refrigerant leaks will not be a major problem at this facility.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  I am saying that in general I would prefer a system that’s safe by design, not by the fact that there are going to be people there who can make very human mistakes and create a problem. It is all relative: is it safer to run a facility like this or to transport a tanker-full of crude oil across waterways? But just saying that well there will be people there to open a valve when bad things happen is naive.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    When comparing the risk of refrigerant leaks in cooling systems in general vs heat exchange systems at a highly technical and actively monitored facility, it is relevant that the facility is actively monitored and probably has much better controls than typical refrigerant-using installations. It's not naïve to observe that most refrigerant leaks are likely from systems that are not monitored (i.e. almost all residential systems and probably most commercial ones).
tw04 5y ago
And we were right. Chernobyl was the result of repeated bad actions that people knew were bad actions at the time. Furthermore Chile has a democratic government, not a communist dictatorship, so it's extremely unlikely for something like that to occur there.
- soperj 5y ago
  I don't agree with the poster, but Fukushima? 3-Mile island? I don't think the democracy has anything to do with it.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    Not having a totalitarian government is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to prevent covering up of accidents.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Singapore is basically a totalitarian state and I'd trust them with a nuclear reactor. Depends on the situation I suppose.
      - asteroidbelt 5y ago
        No it is not. According to democracy index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index, Singapore is "flawed democracy" (not even a "hybrid regime"), same as Mexico, for example. The index might be not very objective, but it is not completely broken, so Singapore is definitely not a "totalitarian state".
      - vkou 5y ago
        To split hairs, Singapore is a one-party police state, but it's not totalitarian. A totalitarian state directs all of its population's efforts in pursuit of state goals. The USSR during WWII (Or during the civil war, or during the years in between the civil war and WWII) would strongly qualify - and between Stalin's death, and Glasnost, would semi-strongly qualify. North Korea would strongly qualify. Singapore, modern Russia, or modern-day China would not, because most activity that takes place in them is undirected market economics. They have a few directed economic areas, deemed of import to the state, but for the majority of activity taking place in them, the state is not involved significantly closer than it is in western countries.
pornel 5y ago
This is like using Hindenburg as a caution against party balloons.
- staunch 5y ago
  The Hindenburg disaster should definitely serve as a caution against using hydrogen party balloons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5JwHeKnZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5JwHeKnZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DUIcCq0Hes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DUIcCq0Hes
vkou 5y ago
I would like to remind everyone that nearly every single industrial process, used to manufacture common, everyday items necessary for civilization, at one point or another, handles materials, fluids, or gases at very high pressure. If 'gases under pressure' is a deal breaker for you, I hope you don't use gasoline, or buy any products that are shipped by gas-powered, or diesel-powered vehicles.

Freestyler_3 5y ago

No matter how fast they notice it, a leak will have a huge impact even if just for a second. Bigger system means bigger pipes or faster transport, either will result in more loss than what a whole consumer grade system can possibly contain. But like someone said, they most likely wont be using any consumer grade gasses. Big systems use gas that is more dangerous for humans nearby, but has no impact on the ozon.